Prospective validity of a clinical prediction rule for response to non-surgical multidisciplinary management of knee osteoarthritis in tertiary care: a multisite prospective longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVES: We tested a previously developed clinical prediction tool-a nomogram consisting of four patient measures (lower patient-expected benefit, lower patient-reported knee function, greater knee varus angle and severe medial knee radiological degeneration) that were related to poor response to non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis. This study sought to prospectively evaluate the predictive validity of this nomogram to identify patients most likely to respond poorly to non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN: Multisite prospective longitudinal study. SETTING: Advanced practice physiotherapist-led multidisciplinary service across six tertiary hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with knee osteoarthritis deemed appropriate for trial of non-surgical management following an initial assessment from an advanced practice physiotherapist were eligible for inclusion. INTERVENTIONS: Baseline clinical nomogram scores were collected before a trial of individualised non-surgical management commenced. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Clinical outcome (Global Rating of Change) was collected 6 months following commencement of non-surgical management and dichotomised to responder (a little better to a very great deal better) or poor responder (almost the same to a very great deal worse). Clinical nomogram accuracy was evaluated from receiver operating characteristics curve analysis and area under the curve, and sensitivity/specificity and positive/negative likelihood ratios were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 242 participants enrolled. Follow-up scores were obtained from 210 participants (87% response rate). The clinical nomogram demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.70 (p<0.001), with greatest combined sensitivity 0.65 and specificity 0.64. The positive likelihood ratio was 1.81 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.36) and negative likelihood ratio 0.55 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: The knee osteoarthritis clinical nomogram prediction tool may have capacity to identify patients at risk of poor response to non-surgical management. Further work is required to determine the implications for service delivery, feasibility and impact of implementing the nomogram in clinical practice.

Patient characteristics associated with a poor response to non-surgical multidisciplinary management of knee osteoarthritis: a multisite prospective longitudinal study in an advanced practice physiotherapist-led tertiary service.

OBJECTIVES: To explore patient characteristics recorded at the initial consultation associated with a poor response to non-surgical multidisciplinary management of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) in tertiary care. DESIGN: Prospective multisite longitudinal study. SETTING: Advanced practice physiotherapist-led multidisciplinary orthopaedic service within eight tertiary hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 238 patients with KOA. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Standardised measures were recorded in all patients prior to them receiving non-surgical multidisciplinary management in a tertiary hospital service across multiple sites. These measures were examined for their relationship with a poor response to management 6 months after the initial consultation using a 15-point Global Rating of Change measure (poor response (scores -7 to +1)/positive response (scores+2 to+7)). Generalised linear models with binomial family and logit link were used to examine which patient characteristics yielded the strongest relationship with a poor response to management as estimated by the OR (95% CI). RESULTS: Overall, 114 out of 238 (47.9%) participants recorded a poor response. The odds of a poor response decreased with higher patient expectations of benefit (OR 0.74 (0.63 to 0.87) per 1/10 point score increase) and higher self-reported knee function (OR 0.67 (0.51 to 0.89) per 10/100 point score increase) (p<0.01). The odds of a poor response increased with a greater degree of varus frontal knee alignment (OR 1.35 (1.03 to 1.78) per 5° increase in varus angle) and a severe (compared with mild) radiological rating of medial compartment degenerative change (OR 3.11 (1.04 to 9.3)) (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These characteristics may need to be considered in patients presenting for non-surgical multidisciplinary management of KOA in tertiary care. Measurement of these patient characteristics may potentially better inform patient-centred management and flag the need for judicious monitoring of outcome for some patients to avoid unproductive care.

Agreement between telehealth and in-person assessment of patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions presenting to an advanced-practice physiotherapy screening clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the level of agreement between a telehealth and in-person assessment of a representative sample of patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions referred to an advanced-practice physiotherapy screening clinic. DESIGN: Repeated-measures study design. PARTICIPANTS: 42 patients referred to the Neurosurgical & Orthopaedic Physiotherapy Screening Clinic (Queensland, Australia) for assessment of their chronic lumbar spine, knee or shoulder condition. INTERVENTION: Participants underwent two consecutive assessments by different physiotherapists within a single clinic session. In-person assessments were conducted as per standard clinical practice. Telehealth assessments took place remotely via videoconferencing. Six Musculoskeletal Physiotherapists were paired together to perform both assessment types. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical management decisions including (i) recommended management pathways, (ii) referral to allied health professions, (iii) clinical diagnostics, and (iv) requirement for further investigations were compared using reliability and agreement statistics. RESULTS: There was substantial agreement (83.3%; 35/42 cases) between in-person and telehealth assessments for recommended management pathways. Moderate to near perfect agreement (AC1 = 0.58-0.9) was reached for referral to individual allied health professionals. Diagnostic agreement was 83.3% between the two delivery mediums, whilst there was substantial agreement (81%; AC1 = 0.74) when requesting further investigations. Overall, participants were satisfied with the telehealth assessment. CONCLUSION: There is a high level of agreement between telehealth and in-person assessments with respect to clinical management decisions and diagnosis of patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions managed in an advanced-practice physiotherapy screening clinic. Telehealth can be considered as a viable and effective medium to assess those patients who are unable to attend these services in person.